Nánxuān jí 南軒集
The Nán-xuān Collection by 張栻 (撰), 朱熹 (編)
About the work
Nánxuān jí 南軒集 in 44 juǎn is the biéjí of Zhāng Shì 張栻 (1133–1180, zì Jìngfū 敬夫, hào Nánxuān 南軒), of Guǎnghàn 廣漢 (modern Sìchuān), son of the famous chief-councillor and recovery-faction leader Zhāng Jùn 張浚 (1097–1164). With Zhū Xī 朱熹 朱熹 and Lǚ Zǔqiān 呂祖謙 呂祖謙, one of the Dōngnán sānxián 東南三賢 (Three Worthies of the Southeast). The collection was edited posthumously by Zhū Xī from a 4-biān manuscript that Zhāng’s brother Zhāng Sháo 張杓 had assembled, plus 50+ additional pieces Zhū gathered from Zhāng’s correspondents — printed at Chúnxī jiǎchén (1184) with Zhū’s editorial preface that explicitly distinguishes Zhāng’s wǎnsuì (late-year) views from his earlier wèidìng (not-yet-settled) discussions. Tomb-inscription for Zhāng Jùn (Zhāng Shì’s father) by Zhū Xī (which the Yǔlèi records as based on Zhāng Shì’s xíngzhuàng) is silently omitted from this collection — an editorial decision the Sìkù editors single out as evidence of Zhū’s “not letting friendship harm public right-and-wrong”.
Tiyao
The Nánxuān jí in 44 juǎn was composed by Zhāng Shì of the Sòng. Shì’s zì was Jìngfū, a man of Guǎnghàn, son of the chéngxiàng Jùn. By yìn (shadow-privilege) supplemented to office; in Xiàozōng’s reign held office as zuǒsī yuánwài láng, Mìgé xiūzhuàn; ended as Jīnghúběilù ānfǔshǐ. His deeds are recorded in the Sòngshǐ Dàoxué zhuàn. After Shì died, his younger brother Sháo gathered his old manuscripts in 4 great编 (compilations); entrusted Master Zhū to discuss-and-fix [them]. Master Zhū further sought-and-obtained from various scholars several tens of pieces transmitted in the four directions, augmented by ordinary back-and-forth letter-correspondence; ordering and copying — before this work was completed, others had already cut a different běn in circulation. Master Zhū regarded that the cut běn mostly contains early-year wèidìng (unsettled) discussions, while late-year discussion-of-canon and discussion-of-affairs and fāmíng dàoyào (illuminating the way’s essentials) words were instead [from] the omitted-and-lost. Therefore [Zhū] took what was previously gathered, cānhù mutually-collated; with judgment from Shì’s wǎnsuì meaning, fixed [it] as 44 juǎn; and detailed the reasons for the changed-edit at the head of the book. This is the present-transmitted Chúnxī jiǎchén běn (1184). Shì and Master Zhū’s friendship was the closest. The collection’s letters to Master Zhū total 73 [pieces]; further [there are] dáwèn in 4 piān. Among them the discussion-disputation is yínyín (sharply earnest), without the slightest jiǎjiè (mutual softening) — like the 2nd zhā casting doubt on the císhòu matter; the 3rd zhā disputing mùjì and zhōngyuánjì; the 4th zhā disputing the Tàijítúshuō commentary; the 5th, 6th, 7th zhā disputing the Zhōngyōng commentary; the 8th zhā disputing the Yóu Zuòcí jì; the 10th zhā admonishing Master Zhū’s yǔyán shǎohépíng (words less peaceful); the 11th zhā discussing the shècāng (society-granary) defects, blaming [Zhū for] partiality toward Wáng Ānshí; the 15th zhā disputing that Húshì’s transmitted ÈrChéng jí need not be retroactively changed, [and] admonishing [Zhū to] píngxīn yìqì (calm heart, easy spirit); the 21st zhā detailedly discussing [that] the Rén doctrine has liúbì (washing-away defects); the 44th zhā discussing the shānzhōng various shīyǔ not peaceful; the 49th zhā discussing the Yìshuō [is] not yet settled, [meaning] long-since many yìsī (intentions) cannot be put down; the 54th zhā admonishing [Zhū’s] believing the yīnyáng expert’s zézàngdì (selecting-burial-site) [advice]; the yǔ Hú Jìsuí 5th zhā further discussing Master Zhū’s compiled Míngchén yánxínglù not refined-careful — Master Zhū both recorded them in the collection without taking them as [hostile] interference. Further: Shì’s learning-source originally came out from Hú Hóng; yet the 28th zhā to Master Zhū says Hú Yín reading-the-Shǐ Guǎnjiàn defects-and-failures cannot be spoken, in it there are good-passages but also no complete piān; further the 53rd zhā says Hú Ānguó’s Chūnqiū zhuàn in it has many places worth discussion — Master Zhū still recorded them in the collection without taking them as offense. Sufficient to see [Zhū as] a chúnrú’s xīnshù (heart-art) bright-and-penetrating, without the slightest dǎngtóng fáyì (faction-uniting, foe-attacking) self-interest. Later persons hold ménhù zhī jiàn, every-character-every-phrase no-not-defended-back — quite missing Master Zhū’s original-meaning. As to Master Zhū composing Zhāng Jùn’s mùzhì: originally based on Shì’s composed xíngzhuàng — therefore many over-praising phrases. The Yǔlèi records [this] very clearly. Yet editing-and-fixing this collection: [Zhū] cut-out [Zhāng] Jùn’s xíngzhuàng and did not record [it] — also enough to see [his] not letting friend-private-affection harm right-and-wrong’s public [judgment]. Those discussing Zhāng Jùn often have residual-criticism toward Master Zhū — perhaps having not closely-examined this collection. Liú Chāngshī’s Lúpǔ bǐjì refutes Shì’s Yáomiào gē directing the Yáomiào at Guìlín, [as] failing in fùhuì (forced association) — that [poem] is now in the collection — indeed taking its honoring of imperial-virtue and overlooking its shìshí (factual reality). Chāngshī further records Shì’s Quèzhāi míng calling that Shì at his father’s command composed [it] for his younger brother Sháo — the original collection does not record [it]; checking, indeed correct. Yet Shì’s collection was edited by Sháo himself; should not contradictorily-omit [it]. Examining Gāo Sīdé’s Chǐtáng cúngǎo there is Nánxuān Yǒngzhōu zhūshī bá saying: “Liú Yǔxī edited Liǔ Zǐhòu’s collection, cut at Yǒngzhōu and after — youthful compositions did not record one piān. The Nánxuān xiānshēng at Yǒngzhōu inscribed at sāntíng Lúshān various shī, at the time barely 20-some suì, sending lodging already luòluò mùmù like this. Yet seeking [them] in the collection — all are absent. Could it be that the editor by [the] Liǔ-collection method judged [it]? Then Shì’s collection extra-shīwén are all what Master Zhū cut out as juvenilia — not chance lost.” Qiánlóng 43 (1778), respectfully collated.
Abstract
Nánxuān jí is the canonical edition of Zhāng Shì’s writings — edited by Zhū Xī himself in 1184 as the authoritative text against an earlier inferior recension. Zhāng Shì was the principal Southern-Sòng Lǐxué figure in the inner Zhū Xī circle and the principal philosophical correspondent on the Tàijí, Zhōngyōng, and Rénshuō discussions of the 1170s. The collection’s 73 letters to Zhū Xī plus 4 dáwèn form one of the densest philosophical correspondences in Sòng intellectual history — with Zhāng pushing back vigorously against Zhū’s Tàijítúshuō commentary, Zhōngyōng commentary, Rénshuō, and on personal matters (shècāng operations, geomantic burial-site choice, the ÈrChéng jí edits) — all preserved by Zhū without rancor.
The collection’s politicaldimension is also substantive: as the son of Zhāng Jùn, Zhāng Shì was at the center of the Lóngxīng běifá (1163–1164 Northern Expedition) decisions, and many of the memorials in the collection reflect his consistent anti-appeasement / huīfù (recovery) stance. The dating bracket: 1163 (around the start of Zhāng’s substantive composition during his father’s Lóngxīng chief-councillorship) through 1184 (the date of Zhū Xī’s editorial closure of the collection). Zhāng Shì himself died in 1180 (CBDB id 7164).
Translations and research
- 朱漢民 et al. 2010. 《張栻與湖湘學派研究》. Standard PRC scholarship on Zhāng and the Hú-Xiāng school.
- Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland. 1992. Confucian Discourse and Chu Hsi’s Ascendancy. Hawai’i. Treats Zhāng Shì as principal correspondent of Zhū Xī.
- 田浩 (Tillman). 1996. 《朱熹的思維世界》. Taipei: Yunchen.
- Wilson, Thomas A. 1995. Genealogy of the Way. Stanford. Treats Lǐ-xué canon-formation including the Zhāng-Zhū correspondence.
Other points of interest
The Zhū Xī editorial preface to this collection is one of the most important documents of Sòng posthumous-editing practice and philosophical-canonical formation. The Sìkù editors’ lengthy treatment of how Zhū Xī balanced friendship and editorial principle is one of the more substantive critical interventions in the entire WYG.